posted
"I don't see where you've conclusively demonstrated that none of his tithing dollars went to Prop 8, Paul"
That's because you are using a fail version of financial understanding. If I draw 90% of my income from X, and 10% from Y, and the dollars from Y are only possible because of X, even if I take dollars out of Y's checking account to pay for D, X is still is still paying for D, especially when funding from X is also used to motivate people to fund D.
The premise I am starting from there (which derives from a broader look at the financial) is that it is not possible for an organization to have two bank accounts that don't overlap. In order for me to accept that a particular oganization doesn't follow that rule, I'd want an independent financial investigator to go through detailed documents of that organization. Without that evidence, the organization's finances overlap. I think NOT holding that view is naive. And the mormon church doesn't release its financial documents, so anything it says about its finances shouldn't be trusted. Again, this is coming from a broader view of the financial world being applied to a particular case. The mormon church has the particular compounding factor that it has lied about same sex marriage many times, so anything it says about same sex marriage should not be trusted.
"And the inconsistency seems pretty darned relevant to me, since the discussion is all about how objectionable it is to support something wrong with money. Looking at supporting other things that are wrong with money...how is that not relevant? "
Because, as noted, we're talking about what OTHER people say, vs what I say.
I also think its true that most people would say "Yeah, shopping at wal-mart isn't a great idea, but I do it anyways." I've had that conversation a few times, and the basic response is always the same. However, mormons don't want to take responsibility for funding prop 8. So there's a big difference right there that I think moves your question into irrelevancy.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's also the fact that the LDS church positions itself as a moral authority, heck *the* moral authority. So their questionably moral behavior demands more scrutiny than a corporation like WalMart for which "don't be evil" is in the "nice to have" column and not a core focus of the business.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: ... But when I buy something made in the USA from Wal-Mart, exactly how morally liable am I for supporting unfair labor practices abroad?
A lot? The argument usually goes that unfair labour practices abroad are better than no labour practices abroad. Also, that Walmart (or rather the manufacturers that it buys from) has been a powerful force for the alleviation of poverty in China and other places in the developing world.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Why do you think so? This is no more a given than, say, determinism is "defeatist."
The 'city' is, of course, a metaphor. You know, a "City of God".
The endgame of these sorts of accusations, although it takes awhile to get there, and the getting there is all the fun (at least for the critic) is what can only be called the pleasure the critic takes in seeing the certainties of the city-dweller falter. So, following the somewhat overburdened metaphor...the city is emptied. The structure stands, it is no longer inhabited--or, no longer inhaited in the same way.
Of course, the folks looking into the city, say from the hillside...with a telescope...feeling irritated at the behaviours of the city dwellers live surrounded in mystery: Do they come from a city of their own in comparison to which this one is especially provocative? If not, where do they live? Is their home on their back, are they nomads? Or, are they "homeless", wanderers? Are they looking for somewhere to stay?
I asked, for example, Samprimary "where he was coming from?" He didn't address the question, probably because he feels it's irrelevant to the argument at hand--after all, rhetorically speaking, the end is near--they're on the run--but, as a mildly interested observer myself, I wonder what the nature and the character of the inhabitants of his city are like? Where is it? Is it full of people or empty? Why is he lying on the side of the hill with a telescope?
To further confuse myself, it's not unlike a orphan criticizing the parents of another child. "Your dad yells at you!" "You mother drinks too much!" implying that the child should do what precisely? Leave home? Cry? Say "No, you don't live with us, you don't understand" The question to the critic is "What are you asking the child to do?" followed by "Is where you're coming from a better spot to be?" It better be, once the kid starts following you "home".
Posts: 1154 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The question to the critic is "What are you asking the child to do?" followed by "Is where you're coming from a better spot to be?" It better be..."
Would you suggest that no movie critic should review a film without offering other alternatives?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
haa. What strange motivations and pleasures I apparently have.
The metaphors (sadly) have little to do with my expectations, obligations, or purpose in pointing out when something that is asserted, from anyplace (be it a city of god or a carpark of atheism or a meandering blimp of apatheism or whatever), is not meaningful in the way that the asserters are inclined to convince themselves they are.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Samprimary, in spite of what you might think, it seems to me that the very personal nature of your concerns is mainly what is at stake here. After all, you're the one who was/is irritated and feels that this irritation is worthy of a somewhat public airing. No? In our very hyper-individualistic consumer society you can hardly think it strange that you might feel 'irritation' at what you see as a poor product placement on the part of major religious institution--i.e. so far--that's what you seem to feel is at stake...e.g. you're not, rhetorically, "against" the Mormon faith or even accusing their leadership of anything more than (as far as I can tell) what amounts to poor marketing. If they'd just said they were using 'those' funds instead of 'these', then you could pass on to some other personal irriation/satisfaction--like the one about Muslims and veils, where I gather you've given Islam a few points for seeing things your way. As you quipped: "Good!"
It's this 'your way' question (i.e. Where are you coming from?) that I think you've some owness to speak to--at least, if you don't want to give the impression that only thing you really are taking issue with is poor product placement.
My impression is that your concerns lie deeper than that, although, you seem reluctant to offer a glimpse into that 'space'. Happy to try and take down Al Capone on tax evasion....and letting the public 'connect the dots'. (I'm not suggesting that the Mormon faith is like a criminal syndicate, but that your tactics are to treat it 'as if'.)
Anyway, just curious--which, in many respects, is my excuse for carelessness.
Tom -- regarding the film critic -- I see what you're getting at here and would agree.... and I hope you can see that this very question pervades my question to Samprimary: From the perspective of the city-dweller/child with parent...there is really only the possibility of leaving an empty city behind (i.e. as a first step towards, perhaps, an 'alternative'). From the perspective of the critic, the owness is to articulate an alternative.
Note: edited for (something like) clarity (look, it's a work in progress) and to add some names. Further edited to apologize to Tom for giving the unintended impression that I imagined he didn't see that this was metaphor. It just came out that way...
quote:haa. What strange motivations and pleasures I apparently have.
Not nearly as strange as BlackBlade, who is apparently all sorts of howling hypocrite and flagrant liar.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Even if you are completely sanguine about the idea that the church separates these two cash flows to a ridiculous extreme, which is highly doubtful, you still financially support the church. Perhaps there is more granularity in the idea of supporting the church by doing business with it, but you are *giving it money*. Gratis. There is not much granularity in that.
I'm not sure what your point has to do what we're talking about, Orincoro.
Guuuuhhh.... seriously?
Why do you always do this?
You're wrong you're wrong you're wrong... ummmm... I don't understand what you're talking about!
Seriously? Lame.
quote: That is, I don't see what my supporting the church has to do with the level of granularity at which we're considering the use of tithing in the support of Prop 8.
'Twas YOU, who claimed I was being "too granular." You brought it up. I think it's very cut and dried. You refuse to understand, which is your go-to position when you're all out of logic-juice.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Without your dollar bills, the infrastructure and cash flow would not be there for the church to fund prop 8.
Now you're getting onto much shakier ground, though, because this kind of reasoning applies to a great deal of spending that all sorts of Americans engage in every day in great amounts without being condemned. For instance, some of the stuff I buy from Wal-Mart is made in the USA. (Much more isn't, of course). But when I buy something made in the USA from Wal-Mart, exactly how morally liable am I for supporting unfair labor practices abroad?
I find that a rather distinct situation in that you are not giving your money away. Part of your position as a consumer, rather than just as a member of an organization, is that the company you are doing business with is regulated by law, and is a for-profit, non-political (more or less depending on the company) entity. The labor practices of its subsidiaries and partners abroad you can help to shape by your choosing not to support unfair labor practices, however you also pay your taxes, and part of that money your government spends on diplomatic missions which are attempting to achieve the same goal, ideally.
I think a key difference too is that we must do business with people, and we must pay attention to both our bottom lines and the moral implications of how we spend our money. Mormons and other donors and tithers are giving their money away. The only consideration involved is: "how are these people spending my money?" And if you can't be realistic about that, you aren't doing your due diligence.
quote: In fact the arguments you're making - that tithing dollars 'make possible' financial support for Prop 8 - seems pretty similar to a question of moral liability to me. Supporting someone who supports something objectionable is not necessarily the same thing as supporting it directly yourself. How much it is or isn't seems a pretty moral question.
It is not necessarily the same thing, philosophically. However, in this particular case, it is being argued that tithing to the church is tantamount to directly supporting the cause, and it is being suggested furthermore, that there may in fact be *no* material difference at all, because of the way the church conceals its financial practices. Now, given the way in which tithing money contributes to the church's political power in a very real sense, and the shadowy nature of the church's finances which make it entirely possible for the church to abuse the trust of its members and to spend money in ways it claims not to, I think it is reasonable to hold church members responsible for directly supporting the church's political agenda.
I'm wary of any too-specific analogy, because most of the ones I can think of are criminal: doing legitimate business with someone you know is spending the money on illegal enterprises, closing your eyes and firing a gun in a random direction and claiming not to be responsible for the outcome, etc. The point is that church members pay money into the church, and are not themselves informed of how that money is spent. Meanwhile, the church spends loads of money being political. Anybody claiming a lack of responsibility for what the church does, but is *giving it money*, is to my mind quite seriously in need of a wake-up call.
We are compelled to pay our taxes, we are compelled by circumstance to do business in an environment in which our money may be used against us politically, but we are not compelled to contribute cash to political entities, and I think when we do, we need to be quite aware of what they money is used for. I'm appalled that apparently every Mormon who has contributed to this thread both gives money to the church, and has no decent idea of how that money is spent. (And to head off cries of "what am I supposed to do about it??" I can say this: Don't give your money to shadowy organizations who spend billions of dollars a year but won't tell you where it came from.)
posted
It may be entirely true that no tithing money went to the gay marriage effort, but as has been pointed out, that is essentially meaningless for any organization that can shift funds between different parts of the balance sheet. If more tithing money goes to X, that may free up other money to go to Y, which otherwise would have been going to X.
Having said that, I don't think this issue should present a huge moral dilemma for Mormans - unless they are operating under the premise that the church needs to be absolutely perfect in order to receive tithing money. Only a small fraction of revenue went towards that particular effort.
It's definitely comparable to the taxes I pay to the government - I'm certain the government has committed worse acts than the Morman Church has with its money, yet I consider it moral to pay taxes because on balance it provides a lot more benefit than harm.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll happily discuss this topic again when those folks who adamantly insist that there is wrong-doing afoot actually bring proof to the table.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
The appeal to 'proof' is a curious one. Superficially, it would appear that you are suggesting there is one standard of proof that both a believer and a non-believer should agree to meet. What is the baseline case? Proof of the existence of angels? Miracles? Oh, I see, that is different. So, what kind of 'proof'? A document? A tape? A court decision?
It's hard to imagine any kind of standard of proof that you could appeal to that would be consistant. Invoking concept of 'proof' will carry you out of the city.
The proof is in the pudding.
Posts: 1154 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I'll happily discuss this topic again when those folks who adamantly insist that there is wrong-doing afoot actually bring proof to the table."
You mean proof that the church supported proposition 8? I didn't think that was in dispute.
When your church makes public its documents, then we can exam the possibility you are right But since it WON'T, there's no possibility of providing the type of proof you are demanding. Until that time, finances being what finances are, I consider it rather unlikely that anyone being honest could support the proposition that tithing dollars did not go to fund proposition 8.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let's look at this another way. I have no agenda here as I am not Mormon and don't really care about prop 8 but I am enjoying the discussion. First of all, a few assumptions have to be made.
1. Let's assume as fact that the church gave money to prop 8 and that tithing allowed more money to go to it.
2. Let's assume that hypothetical person Joe gives money to the church and does not like that the church is spending money on prop 8.
3. Let's assume that Joe knows as fact that the church does many other things with his money that he DOES agree with and support.
What are Joe's options?
1. He could stop giving money to the church. The problems here are that he is no longer supporting all the other things that he does agree with. Of course he could always send his support to those programs directly. Also, he is removing himself from a community that he feels very close to and does not want to lose that involvement so this might not be the best option.
2. He could just keep his mouth shut and continue on as before. This is what most people would do but Joe is a pretty moral and outspoken guy so he is not real fond of this option.
3. He could continue giving to the church and participating in its activities but try to educate his fellow members about his feelings toward prop 8 to see if he can, over time, change their viewpoint on the subject. It is probably a hopeless cause but may well be worth the effort.
Anyone see any other options for Joe?
Posts: 891 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I faced a similar dilemma with the Catholic Church. I did not want my contributions going to lawyers or settlements for the victims of sexual abuse. That should come out of the bishops' purses. My solution was to direct my usual donations away from "general funds" to "special offerings" - offerings that are taken where all that money goes to a specific thing or to Catholic Relief Services which does a pretty good job of keeping funds separate from the Church and accounting for the funds.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: That's because you are using a fail version of financial understanding. If I draw 90% of my income from X, and 10% from Y, and the dollars from Y are only possible because of X, even if I take dollars out of Y's checking account to pay for D, X is still is still paying for D, especially when funding from X is also used to motivate people to fund D.
Even if every step in this hypothetical were accurate, it would not support the statement, "Tithing dollars went to support Prop 8." That's a very specific statement. It would support, however, "The LDS church financially supported Prop 8." That's a bit of a different statement. Now, me personally, I don't think there's much difference between the two, but you might get more traction if you used the more accurate but less damning criticism.
quote:There's also the fact that the LDS church positions itself as a moral authority, heck *the* moral authority. So their questionably moral behavior demands more scrutiny than a corporation like WalMart for which "don't be evil" is in the "nice to have" column and not a core focus of the business.
I agree. I'm not likening the two except to say that we simply as a culture aren't really very conscious or interested in what our dollars do after they leave our wallets, and we ought to bear that in mind when we're criticizing folks for indirectly supporting bad things when, as a whole, we indirectly support lots of bad things ourselves.
quote:Now, given the way in which tithing money contributes to the church's political power in a very real sense, and the shadowy nature of the church's finances which make it entirely possible for the church to abuse the trust of its members and to spend money in ways it claims not to, I think it is reasonable to hold church members responsible for directly supporting the church's political agenda.
I'm not sure how this follows. Because the church might be acting deceptively with its finances, it's reasonable to hold its members responsible as though they were? Isn't the reasonable response to that situation to, well, hold its members responsible for possibly supporting the church's political agenda re: Prop 8?
It's not as though that isn't a pretty strong criticism in and of itself, considering how reprehensible Prop 8 is anyway.
-----------
quote:
When your church makes public its documents, then we can exam the possibility you are right But since it WON'T, there's no possibility of providing the type of proof you are demanding. Until that time, finances being what finances are, I consider it rather unlikely that anyone being honest could support the proposition that tithing dollars did not go to fund proposition 8.
Listen to yourself, Paul. If it's 'rather unlikely' that anyone being honest could support the notion that tithing dollars didn't go to support Prop 8 because financial records aren't released, isn't it also 'rather unlikely' that anyone being honest could support the notion that tithing dollars are funding prop 8? The reasonable accusation here is one of those Orincoro has made: that something potentially very fishy is going on.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by deerpark27: Samprimary, in spite of what you might think, it seems to me that the very personal nature of your concerns is mainly what is at stake here. After all, you're the one who was/is irritated and feels that this irritation is worthy of a somewhat public airing. No?
I don't think I've been irritated by a single thing here. I'm more motivated than anything else by my interest in seeing in what ways and to what lengths (and what mental and argumentative strategies will be employed, be they delusional or not) to defend the statement. This is an excellent environment because it is full of all sorts of people of varying levels of varying types of indoctrination and worldview, and they are good to practice on. =)
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Listen to yourself, Paul. If it's 'rather unlikely' that anyone being honest could support the notion that tithing dollars didn't go to support Prop 8 because financial records aren't released, isn't it also 'rather unlikely' that anyone being honest could support the notion that tithing dollars are funding prop 8? The reasonable accusation here is one of those Orincoro has made: that something potentially very fishy is going on. "
Nope. Because, as previously stated, it is irrational to believe that one organization does not cross-contaminate its finances, without significant proof, when all others do.
In other words, there is no reason to believe that the mormon church is the exception to the general rule.
Different example: If a health clinic receiving 90% of its funding from the government were to perform abortions, and claim no money from tax dollars were used to perform those abortions, there's not many pro-lifers who would agree.
[ July 26, 2010, 02:15 PM: Message edited by: Paul Goldner ]
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Nope. Because, as previously stated, it is irrational to believe that one organization does not cross-contaminate its finances, without significant proof, when all others do.
Oh, you've demonstrated that all other organizations do, have you? I'm fine with skepticism and even suspicion. When presented with an organization that is keeping something secret, that's a natural and rational response. But there's a difference between 'rational to suspect' and 'irrational to think it's not going on'.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Nope. Because, as previously stated, it is irrational to believe that one organization does not cross-contaminate its finances, without significant proof, when all others do.
I think I need to know what cross-contamination means in this context.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
One thing that might be helpful is to note the structure between individual local churches and the larger Church as a whole. Often those funds are kept very separate. For example with the Catholic Church, one can donate to specific things like a roof fund or an music fund and not have that be part of the parish's contribution to the archdiocese.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Skimming along, but this is how I understand the finances issue:
Organization receives funding as 10 $100 checks. 9 of these say "your discretion" and one of them says "only pay for the roof, please." The roof costs $150 to repair. So, half of one of the "discretion" checks go to the roof, plus the specified check. the other $850 gets split like this: $100 to Cause A $750 to Cause B.
If all 10 people had said "your discretion," the split would have been the same. $150 to the roof, $100 to Cause A, $750 to Cause B. The single person specifying, doesn't make much of a difference.
If only 9 people had contributed, then the Organization would have had $900 to split among the needs. Maybe $150 to that pesky roof, $50 to Cause A, and $700 to Cause B. Who knows.
Generally speaking, specifying your money doesn't alter the spending of the organization significantly. Only in the case of receiving more money than needed for that roof repair, or people withholding their donation, does it cause any change in the dynamics of how the money is split up.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not necessarily. With special collections (at least at my parish) often there is no upper limit to the amount needed for a special project. For example, there was a special collection for Haitian relief after the earthquake. Everything that was collected for that went to that. None of that went to ease the burden of the contribution to the archdiocese. A roof fund might, for example, not pull anything from general funds - the roof will wait until there is enough in the roof fund. Or say, 3 of your 10 people directed their donation, there would only be $700 to split between Causes A & B.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Generally speaking, specifying your money doesn't alter the spending of the organization significantly. Only in the case of receiving more money than needed for that roof repair, or people withholding their donation, does it cause any change in the dynamics of how the money is split up.
Does it change the specifying person's moral responsibility?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I'll happily discuss this topic again when those folks who adamantly insist that there is wrong-doing afoot actually bring proof to the table.
I think the wrongdoing was the church spending the money as it did, and you giving the church money. Are you denying either of those two things happened? There's a great potential for other kinds of fraud in this situation as well, but that's entirely *your* lookout. I don't give my money to these people, you do, and your show me attitude is funny in that light.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What's really funny is that none of my assertions even really have to do with the idea that there is 'wrong-doing' afoot. It's just pointing out that the statement that the church released stating that 'no tithing dollars were used on proposition 8' means nothing and isn't an indemnification in any way, shape, or form.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If all of the money that the LDS Church gave to Prop 8 was from a special collection for that purpose would the "no tithe money" makes sense?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Technically, didn't the actual LDS church not give money at all? So if a church leader flew to California and urged people to vote some way, that was worth flight and manpower hours, but not actual cash. Or giving free ad time or whatever. Still supports the movement, but it is one more step removed.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: Generally speaking, specifying your money doesn't alter the spending of the organization significantly. Only in the case of receiving more money than needed for that roof repair, or people withholding their donation, does it cause any change in the dynamics of how the money is split up.
Does it change the specifying person's moral responsibility?
Considering it has no significant material effect? I'd say no, especially if the person giving is aware of how these things operate, which they should be if they are giving their hard earned cash to people.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Technically, didn't the actual LDS church not give money at all? So if a church leader flew to California and urged people to vote some way, that was worth flight and manpower hours, but not actual cash. Or giving free ad time or whatever. Still supports the movement, but it is one more step removed.
The church under-reported its more direct expenditures by, I think, about $200,000. Either way, they gave what is considered direct expenditures.
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Technically, didn't the actual LDS church not give money at all? So if a church leader flew to California and urged people to vote some way, that was worth flight and manpower hours, but not actual cash. Or giving free ad time or whatever. Still supports the movement, but it is one more step removed.
That's not one step removed. That's spending money directly on the cause. If they just collected money and passed it on to somebody else who was also collecting money, that would be a step removed. This is direct spending. It doesn't get any *less* removed.
It's troubling that this very simple principle is presenting so much difficulty in the discussion. I don't generally think of the people who post here as liars, but if I didn't know better, I would suspect lying. I feel quite strongly that if we were talking about a non-religious organization, none of these confusions would be presenting themselves, yet here we are. It's troubling, anyway.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: If all of the money that the LDS Church gave to Prop 8 was from a special collection for that purpose would the "no tithe money" makes sense?
If they collected money for another organization and were otherwise uninvolved in the political campaign against equal rights, then yes, it would make sense. That is not the case however, and so the point is moot.
Oh no, I've run over your dog in the driveway... If I were an elephant, would you get angry at me for squashing your dog?
Hmmm... too bad I'm not an elephant.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Now, given the way in which tithing money contributes to the church's political power in a very real sense, and the shadowy nature of the church's finances which make it entirely possible for the church to abuse the trust of its members and to spend money in ways it claims not to, I think it is reasonable to hold church members responsible for directly supporting the church's political agenda.
I'm not sure how this follows. Because the church might be acting deceptively with its finances, it's reasonable to hold its members responsible as though they were? Isn't the reasonable response to that situation to, well, hold its members responsible for possibly supporting the church's political agenda re: Prop 8?
It's not as though that isn't a pretty strong criticism in and of itself, considering how reprehensible Prop 8 is anyway.
When you give your money to an organization you know to have an accountability problem, I'd say you are duly responsible for everything that organization does with your money. Ignorance of that accountability problem is not a strong defense, obviously. I see your point of course- the members are not responsible for whatever truly outrageous actions the church might take, which were not reasonably to be suspected of it, however this again is not that case. The church is very adamantly anti-gay and anti-equal-rights. In light of that knowledge, I think anyone giving money to that organization is fully accountable for supporting that agenda. As I've said, a church is a unique case- it is not a school, or a government, nor a business nor even a charity. It has a political agenda, and it needs to be treated, even by its members who would rather not be political, according to what it wants to accomplish. Does that hold its members to a higher standard of accountability than tax payers, payers of tuition and consumers in the marketplace? Yes, it certainly does. If you give your money to an activist organization with a political agenda, you had better be clear on what that means.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
First link doesn't work for me; second cannot be said to be wrong doing so much as an oversight.
quote:According to the Fair Political Practices Commission’s Web site, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints “failed to timely report making late non-monetary contributions totaling $36,928.” The commission had requested the church pay $5,539 in fines, which it has done, and the commission will meet to vote on finalizing the penalty on Thursday in Sacramento.
In a statement, the church claimed that all the contributions it made in support of Proposition 8, “were reported to the appropriate authorities in California.” But it admitted that in the last two weeks of the highly contested campaign, it “mistakenly overlooked the daily reporting requirement for non-monetary contributions,” which would include things like staff time. The church’s statement called the reporting failure an “oversight” and thanked the commission for its “fairness and consideration” in dealing with the matter.
posted
So the part where he explains it's not really about wrong-doing, but the inanity of the distinction you've insisted upon is met with... what? You just skip over those paragraphs while reading Scott?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by deerpark27: Samprimary, in spite of what you might think, it seems to me that the very personal nature of your concerns is mainly what is at stake here. After all, you're the one who was/is irritated and feels that this irritation is worthy of a somewhat public airing. No?
I don't think I've been irritated by a single thing here. I'm more motivated than anything else by my interest in seeing in what ways and to what lengths (and what mental and argumentative strategies will be employed, be they delusional or not) to defend the statement. This is an excellent environment because it is full of all sorts of people of varying levels of varying types of indoctrination and worldview, and they are good to practice on. =)
I realized in the early going that this was "all about you"--that's what I found fascinating -- being a bit of a professional solipsist myself. I'm still at a loss as to how you can continue playing without paying some respect to your hosts and giving them a glimpse of "Where you're coming from?" (what, exactly, are you praticing?)
I think the metaphor of the anthill might even be appropriate here, at least, in the way you seem to see your role in this environment: you see a little anthill and put your foot on it -- and then get excited when the ants come out (and, in your case, even more excited when they don't) Beyond a certain exploration of the contours of ones burgeoning cruelty, what sort of 'practice' is this? Practice for what?
Posts: 1154 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think the metaphor of the anthill might even be appropriate here, at least, in the way you seem to see your role in this environment: you see a little anthill and put your foot on it -- and then get excited when the ants come out (and, in your case, even more excited when they don't)
quote:Considering it has no significant material effect? I'd say no, especially if the person giving is aware of how these things operate, which they should be if they are giving their hard earned cash to people.
Then it's not OK to support, in any way, an organization which does something objectionable even if you target your support quite surgically?
If I give money to the 'vaccinate the orphans' fund, well, that does free up finances for the Prop 8 fund, so...
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Back on the ever so drearisome issue of the tea party: is anyone following how Tom "Bomb Mecca" Tancredo is giving me a big shiny happy present of divided colorado conservatives?
posted
It's possible that they're calling it the Tea PARTY because they actually plan to split into an ultra conservative third party, completely separate from the GOP.
That's great for liberals in the short term, since it splits the conservative vote, but it could be horrible long term, if it sticks, because it gives a stronger voice to ultra conservatives, with no need to moderate at all.
For the record, I'm not in favor of ultra liberals any more than ultra conservatives. If we make it about pushing special interest agendas at the expense of everyone else, we all lose.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
Orincoro, so you know, I'm not really paying attention to your posts.
Yeah you are, you've just run out of ways to prevaricate. It's ok, I understand your need to appear not to be a complete fraud. Runs rather parallel with the thread's subject, doesn't it?
Mind, I'm not *calling* you a complete fraud, I'm calling you vain- you haven't been particularly strong on "understanding" things in this thread, so I want that to be clear.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Considering it has no significant material effect? I'd say no, especially if the person giving is aware of how these things operate, which they should be if they are giving their hard earned cash to people.
Then it's not OK to support, in any way, an organization which does something objectionable even if you target your support quite surgically?
No, I'd say that piece of reductionism is not supportable according to what I've said. It's an important distinction that I and Samp and others have pointed out again and again that in *this* specific situation, support cannot be targeted with anything resembling surgical accuracy. That is because of the way the Mormon church functions. That applies to the Mormon church.
And we're a bit beyond the technicality of "does something objectionable." Action is one thing. If an organization acts in a way I don't agree with, but with an intent I do, I might still consider supporting it. I do vote democratic, after all, and they don't always do what I want. But if the goals of the organization you are supporting *are* fundamentally different from your own? If you wish to divorce yourself from those goals morally? Yeah, perhaps you should consider not supporting that organization *at all* until their goals change. It may be ok to support them in specific ways in the mean time, and it may not. That's a judgement call. But I don't see Mormons on this board exercising their judgement. How can they? They aren't being given enough information to judge for themselves what is happening with the money they give. That's untenable, or at least it would be for me. I would never donate money to an organization if I didn't know how that organization worked, or what was done with the money. These people do not know, and cannot know, and that would be unacceptable to me as a donor.
quote: If I give money to the 'vaccinate the orphans' fund, well, that does free up finances for the Prop 8 fund, so...
Yeah, it does. And I bet if you dug into the history of every unsavory backwards hate-driven organization that ever waved a flag against civil liberties, you would find that it too had a fund for orphans.
Perhaps I should start a fund for orphans and pledge to contribute one dollar to it every time someone agrees with me on Hatrack. I didn't know before that your principles were going wholesale to orphan supporters.
Perhaps the gays should get together and support orphans as well... but then in order to do so they would probably like to have legal recognition of their abilities to jointly care for those orphans, and that would mean... oh right, the Mormon church doesn't care enough about orphans to let gays raise them. How silly of me to think the LDS church might be so honorable.
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: That's great for liberals in the short term, since it splits the conservative vote, but it could be horrible long term, if it sticks, because it gives a stronger voice to ultra conservatives, with no need to moderate at all.
That only makes sense in the context of us being a parliamentary system. We're not; we're a first-past-the-gate system that naturally trends towards two-party and brutally punishes vote split through game theory. The tea party has nearly no moderate appeal, and they don't have the electoral strength to foster plurality support for their candidates in a hypothetical three-way or, for some inconceivable reason, they supplant mainstream conservatism despite tea party support (not membership) representing little more than 18% of the american populace, on issues that are trending downwards over time and now are only floated electorally by the support of individuals over the age of 65.
So this isn't like Canada or GB where they could easily run their own 'breakaway' campaign and force the conservatives into accepting many of their terms of policy and governance in return for coalition victory over the liberals. All they can do is split vote and artificially favor liberal candidates through that effect. And were the tea party to supplant the G.O.P. ... somehow, granted as a hypothesis ... then it would have even larger problems of intergenerational transmission of conservative ideals than what the G.O.P. faces now.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
